After a while you become so conditioned to the bland punishments, the indifference to change and the overwhelming sense that the entire organisation is chronically out of touch, that it can come as something of a jolt to learn the relevant people at Uefa might finally have twigged it is time to stop sitting on their hands.

That statement from the governing body's general secretary, Gianni Infantino, about a new tariff of disciplinary measures for racism offences was certainly a break from the norm, promising 10-game bans for players and a two-strike system whereby clubs whose supporters are repeat offenders will have to play in empty stadiums.

This being Uefa, the first reaction is to wonder whether they actually mean it and have the gumption to follow it through. There is, after all, a difference between implementing new rules and imposing them and, for now, the decision-makers at European football's governing body might have to forgive a significant part of their audience for not automatically giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Uefa have previously fined teams more for kicking off a few seconds late than for supporters making monkey noises and holding up swastikas. Against that backdrop, it is probably unsurprising that the big announcement has not exactly led to collective high-fives just yet.

At the same time, there is no point reverting to the default setting that, because it is Uefa, it must automatically be derided. Yes, it is overdue, it is worth maintaining a little scepticism and there are still plenty of grey areas, but it is an acknowledgement that the current system is inadequate and that something needs to be done. It is a start, at least, at the same time as the Football Association puts the final touches to their own review of disciplinary procedures on the same subject.

David Bernstein, the FA's chairman, says the findings will be announced this month, when we can expect more talk of zero-tolerance, clampdowns and – please – some new way to prevent dust gathering on the files (the FA have not finished the investigation into West Ham's game at Spurs in November, when visiting fans could be heard chanting about Hitler and making hissing sounds to imitate the sound of Nazi gas chambers).

The FA, like their counterparts at Uefa, seem to be aware of their deficiencies, at least to a degree. Yet the first place they should start, surely, is with the organisation that everyone automatically associates with fighting the fight – and so far there has been no indication whatsoever that they plan to do so. A visit to Kick It Out's headquarters will tell you all you probably need to know about the attitudes of the people running the sport.

Football's most visible anti-racism group can be found in a fourth-floor office above a pizza shop in Clerkenwell. It's a five-person operation, on funding of less than £300,000 a year. The Premier League, with £5.5bn in TV revenue over the next three years, puts in an annual amount of just less than £100,000. The FA and the Professional Footballers' Association chip in the same. And we plod on.

Nobody seems to find it peculiar that the Football League do not contribute a penny, even though Kick It Out works with all 72 clubs. Or that the Premier League's contribution works out as roughly as 0.000018 of its broadcast rights.

Everyone is clear that Kick It Out needs to be beefed up if it is going to be the organisation that it should be. Yet there are more people downstairs putting on tomato and mozzarella.

At least Uefa are signalling that something within their own mechanics has to change. More importantly, there is evidence that they intend to do what they say. Dynamo Kyiv have been ordered to play two games behind closed doors and referees will know for sure they have the authority to lead off teams if they hear racist abuse.

It comes with a few logistical difficulties, that one, but it certainly beats Michel Platini's response when he was asked during Euro 2012 about the possibility of Mario Balotelli walking off the pitch in protest. "He would get a yellow card," Platini said, matter-of-factly.

What the debate has not needed is the contribution of Sheikh Abdullah Al-Thani, of the Qatari royal family and Malaga's owner, and his assessment of his side's late meltdown against Borussia Dortmund. The initial reaction was to hope that someone must have hacked his Twitter account. Instead, it turned out he was serious after all, and wanted the world to know Malaga were no longer in the Champions League because of "a corrupt Uefa based on racism". Funnily enough, he did not mention the offside goal that helped his team to take a 2-1 lead. Or that the flag should also have gone up when Zlatan Ibrahimovic scored for the Qatari-owned Paris Saint-Germain against Barcelona the previous week.

The new proposals set out by Infantino did not explain if there was anything in the small print for rent-a-quote royals who do not seem to realise that a false allegation of racism can be as damaging as a genuine offence. But hopefully there is.

The same goes for any football person, such as Charles Green of Rangers, who thinks it acceptable to refer to an associate as his "little Paki friend" in a newspaper interview. Green, now facing a Scottish Football Association charge, comes across as being stuck in a time capsule, one that should probably have been left beneath the ground.

In the meantime, Kelvin Reynolds, 20, of Caherdavin, is due to begin 240 hours of community service after admitting he threw a banana at Manchester City's left-back, Gaël Clichy, when Limerick played them in a friendly last August. Reynolds, a Manchester United fan, has 65 previous convictions and claimed in court he did not understand the significance of a banana in football. It's stories like that that make you hope Uefa and the FA will be as good as their word.